EFFECT OF ''PLACE" ON YIELD. 



73 



outer row (Row A, fig. 21) and therefore had on one side, the east, 

 greater space than on the other, where the soil space and illumination 

 was the same as the two inner rows had on both sides. 



In the following Table the total yields of each of these sixteen 

 outer rows (taken as 100) is compared with the total yields of the inner 

 rows on the same plot. 



Plot. 



Outer row. 



Inner row i. 



Inner row 2. 



I 



IOO 



592 



57 



2 



IOO 



64*9 



68' 4 



3 



IOO 



68-5 



77-8 



4 



IOO 



78-5 



7 ri 



5 



IOO 



87-0 



89-0 





IOO 



82-0 



87-5 



5 



IOO 



83-0 



740 



8 



IOO 



70*0 



700 



9 



IOO 



62* 3 



6r 5 



10 



IOO 



78-0 



76:0 



1 1 



IOO 



700 



680 



12 



IOO 



66-5 



8r 5 



13 



IOO 



630 



685 



14 



IOO 



628 



506 



15 



IOO 



76*0 



708 



16 



IOO 



69-2 



68 



Total . . 



IOO 



72-0 



720 



In every case, as well as in the aggregate, the yield of the outer 

 row was markedly greater than was the yield of either of the corre- 

 sponding inner rows. 



The plants in the rows did not have equal exposure, for reference 

 to the plan will show that one plant in each row (lettered X and E on 

 fig. 2 1) had a greater exposure on either the north or the south side 

 than had the others in that row. There were thus forty-eight plants 

 with greater exposure than the remainder. Did this extra space 

 increase the yield ? The total weight of crop from these forty-eight 

 plants was 107 lb. 12 oz. If we find the average yields of the re- 

 maining seventeen plants of each of the forty-eight rows and add 

 them together we obtain a total of 88 lb. 12J oz. The yield of the 

 end plants of the rows compared with the average of the others in 

 the same rows is thus as 100 to 82. The end position in the row is 

 apparently a distinctly favourable one. 



Figures for some other series of experimental plants where all the 

 plants in each row were similarly treated, although not all the rows 

 on the plot were of the same variety, enable us to test the general 

 applicability of this statement. 



In one series of eighty rows the total weight of the end plants 

 amounted to 295 lb. 15 oz. The total of the averages of the inner 

 plants in the rows was 257 lb. 1} oz. This result gives 100 to 87 in 

 favour of the end plants. 



In another of nineteen rows the figures are 62 lb. 10 oz. and 57 lb. 

 12 J oz. respectively, being 100 : 92 in favour of the end plants. 



